IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 19-11-2025 CORAM THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI AND CRL MP NO. 21831 OF 2025 Kalyani W/o.R.Ravi Kannan, DLF Garden City, Tower-26, 14th Floor D-No.2, Chemmencherry, Chennai-600 119.

..Petitioner(s)

Vs The State Rep by, The Inspector of Police, CCB, Job Racketing Wing, Vepery, Chennai. Cr.No.300/2020.

..Respondent(s)

CRL RC No. 2431 of 2025 To set aside the order passed by the Learned CCB-CBCID Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai in Crl.M.P.NO.21715/2023 in CC No.3141/2023 dated 23/07/2025.

CRL MP No. 21831 of 2025 To stay all further proceedings of the case in CC No.3141/2023 on the file of the Learned CCB-CBCID Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai pending disposal of the Revision.

For Petitioner(s): Ms.A.Madhumathi For Respondent(s): Dr.C.E.Pratap, Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side)

Order

Challenging the impugned order passed by the CCEB-CBCID Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai in Crl.M.P.No. 21715 of 2023 in C.C.No.3141 of 2023 dated 23.07.2025, the petitioner/A2 preferred this Criminal Revision Case.

2. Before the trial court, the petitioner filed a petition under Sec.239 of Cr.P.C. seeking to discharge her from the proceedings stating that she has been falsely implicated in this case, in fact Geetha Rajkumar alone involved in job racketing by collecting amount from various persons nor she dealt with entire money, however, her husband was implicated as accused. Therefore, she pleaded innocence and prayed to discharge her from the proceedings. The said petition was strongly objected by the prosecution stating that the prosecution witnesses clearly deposed the involvement of this petitioner, who is wife of A1 also involved in collecting amount by giving false promise to secure the Government jobs in various departments and to that effect, statements were also recorded from the witnesses. Considering the same, the trial judge held that there is prima facie materials with regard to involvement of this petitioner along with other accused is established by the prosecution. Therefore, the petition was dismissed as no merit. Aggrieved over that, the petitioner preferred this Criminal Revision Case by raising the following grounds for consideration :-

(a)The lower court ought to have seen that prima facie no offence is made out against the petitioner Kalyani and her name is implicated only by the 3^rd accused and the same is having no evidential proof.

(b) The lower court erred in dismissing the discharge petition inspite of the fact that the petitioner's involvement in the crime was not at all established through the 161 Crl.P.C. Statement of witnesses.

(c) The lower court ought to have seen that mere suspicion however strong it may be cannot considered to be a proof or an evidence against the petitioner and there are no material particulars to implicate the accused in the main case.

(d) The lower court ought to have seen that the petitioner Kalyani's involvement in the commission of the offence is not proved through any of the witness or documents in this case and the only role played by her is being the wife of A1 Ravi Kannan and that is not sufficient to file a criminal case against her.

(e)The lower court ought to have seen that as per the prosecution case it was the complainant A3 Mrs. Geetha Rajkumar was the one, who collected money from the victims to case on the pretext of getting a Government job, and that is the reason, the Hon'ble High Court Court was pleased to direct the prosecution to implead as one of the accused.

By submitting the above grounds, the learned counsel for petitioner would submit that A3/Geetha Rajkumar had received all the amounts from various persons by giving false promise to get a Government job in various departments. Since the petitioner, being wife of A1, she was falsely implicated in this case, but there is no prima facie material to implicate this petitioner. Inspite of that, the trial judge has dismissed the petition. Hence, he prayed to set a